Never mind masturbation, let’s talk maths.

Ah testoterone, the substance that makes men men. Chemical source of masculinity, spring of the libido, cause of criminality and passion. Give it to women and they instantly become manly. Give nothing to women and pretend its testosterone and they become manly.

Testosterone is indeed potent stuff but only, much like gods, due to the force of culturally established presumption. The power of the double blind test when a hopeful presumption to support prejudice needs tearing apart, meanwhile, has never seemed greater.

Observers of London politics may remember BoJo’s swift reaction to the merest allegations of racism against James McGrath. A sign of sensitivity to the dangers of prejudice, then? Perhaps we should check what his Chief of Staff, Tim Parker, thinks of women in government then:

He said that it was easier to appoint women to posts for which few qualifications were needed but said that as jobs became more important it was difficult to find suitable candidates.

Mr Parker said: “When you go down the pyramid of an organisation you find many more posts that are open to a broader market and it’s much easier there to be more equal, as it were.

“The narrower you get it’s tougher and tougher and sometimes you will get a situation where there are more people leaving or more people from one group or another.”

Perhaps not, then. For the unfamiliar with the Prince of Darkness’ infernal doublespeak, we’ll translate that:

He said it was easier to appoint women to low-skilled, low paid jobs. And that those well-paid jobs which exist naturally go to men.

Mr. Parker said: “When you go down the pay scales of organisations you find many posts that are open to the other half of the population and it’s easier to be equal there. Because that’s all I think they’re good for. As it were.

The higher-paid you get, it tougher and very often you’ll get a situation where there are women leaving because I feel they’re weak and more people from the rich white boys club. Because we’re rather good at keeping it that way.”

He doesn’t need to hide behind a claim that, “one group,” does better than the other. It’s easy to see what he’s referring to in context; men and women. But, because he’s bothered to cover his misogyny with the weakest of weasel words, the media deigns not to notice. And so he gets away with it.

These are the new, caring Conservatives, you see.

(Hat-tip: The F-Word)

It truly does take an extensive effort to create the impression of being more interested about matters concerning sexuality and genitals than I am. From around March 2006 until the tail end of last year I was immersed in an trans-Atlantic effort to convince American mothers-to-be not to circumcise their healthy newborn boys. This was on the sound grounds of subjective decisions being best made by the subject and the fact that removing erogenous zones tends to decrease pleasure, but despite this solid logical foundation the matter proved considerably time consuming. Debates with advocates of “Parental choice” (as opposed to “Personal choice”) could be persistent drains of my time, frequently leaving little spare. It is quite a challenging task to exceed me along this front, then; but William Saletan is unquestionably one of the few men up to the task.

Seemingly endlessly fascinated with matters ranging from why parents should talk to their children about anal sex instead of oral and his bafflement about other sections of the media not being as interested over the matter as he is to the legal impact and importance of pornographic hypocrisy he seemingly rarely lays finger to key on another topic. And his seemingly indefatigable energies have led him to write an endless torrent of articles on the matter for years. Thus it was not entirely a surprise to observe that he had been given the task of writing about the birth of a child to a man. The results are perhaps not entirely tasteful, but certainly succeed in rousing further an issue kicking around in my head since the Liberal Conspiracy “Blogger’s Summit” (the pretentious absurdity of that title still threatens to overwhelm me…)

I was directed towards this series by Deborah Cameron, one of the writers cited, during her talk at Marxism 2008. It is perhaps the antithesis of the pieces written by Saletan late last year, on one of the few occasions he was able to drag his attention away from what lay between the humanity’s legs. Unfortunately in considering instead what coated their bodies he improved precious little, stating the case for inherent racial difference of intellect in a manner that at least partially relied upon the “research” of a notorious racist who’s dedication meant he pursued methods best understated as of sub-optimum scientific worth. Amongst them were comparing the brain size of the average “negro” to his penis.

In this, however, the rare argument is made that, despite the fathomless ocean of anecdote and entire self-help sub-genre dedicated to explicitly and solely outlining these differences between the two factions and then proclaiming them inherent and immutable, women and men are not really so different, after all.

That there is sound evidence to support this case is demonstrated by the fact that this is effectively six solid pages on constant references, links and explanations to and of scientific studies conducted in a reliable fashion. The importance of placing our faith in the scientific method rather than precise but limited annecdote is made finest by Cameron, who provides her own annecdotal tale of her father; who presumed females to be poor drivers and thus saw as much, earnestly surprised when she pointed out the many examples she noted of women driving just fine or men poorly.

More substantially during her talk at Marxism she outlined a study conducted where judges were made to listen to recordings of audio footage from standard conversations, then interviewed about them. The reaction of the subjects was to state that of the speakers the females had used the phrase “Like” in the context of informal quasi-Dadaist slang far more frequently than the males. In reality there was no difference. The cause of this is preconception: the judges imagined a female speaker using the phrase “Like” and their perceptions were scewed accordingly. This demonstrates the fallibility of informal observation of existence for gender disparrities: culture may succeed in shaping our prejudices more than it does in shaping our behaviour.

Furthermore it is valuable remembering firstly that the different treatment of the sexes begins before gender differences arise (babies dressed in blue will receive different treatment from nurses to those in pink) and secondly that while instances of culture impacting upon behaviour are clear and well understood the theories proposed by advocates of inherency are often based around ambiguous and sparse data (our knowledge about hormones, for example, is not nearly substantial enough to support the claims made in relation to behaviour). Especially given that differences in behaviour tend to be greater within genders than between them and the exact nature of the distinction varies widely across societies it seems inevitable that it must be accepted gender is a cultural construct rather than something that comes attached fully and indivisibly to sex and results in ready-conditioned newborn girls and boys that require “appropriate” treatment.

Considerable forces both in media and publishing, however, are unwilling to travel down this course of reasoning. This could be a matter of profit: with a society seeking reassurance that its fundamental components are still valid the provision of empty promises of inherency certainly sell well enough to sustain the aforementioned sub-genre. However I suspect that at least some of the defenders of the ineluctable gender binary are neither earnestly deluded dupes or profit seeking characters, but instead those willing to accept unsubstantiated arguments for fear of the alternative.

Perhaps then it is valuable to outline it: gender is a concept rather than an inherent outcome. Insofar as the differences between the genders are not imagined they are exagerrated and with or without this there is no evidence of inevitability. Accordingly gender is a creation of culture, one of the grandest memes rather than something largely biological in origin. This is not a position which should be underestimated: any idea which has such a substantial portion of the population in its thrall is clearly not to be underestimated and is sure to be thoroughly entrenched. But it leaves it susceptible to overturning in a fashion which limitations such as the inability for unaided flight can not be. Quite simply if gender is an idea, all it would take to put its power to an end would be for this to be realised and for it to be agreed that it is a bad idea.

This makes it perhaps understandable that such a determined effort would be offered by those reactionaries who have aligned themself in the defence of difference to describe the distinction of gender as innate and bound tightly to sex. If people are unclear where gender ends and sex begins or, better yet, consider the two terms to be interchangeable then they will find it impossible to evaluate whether the ideas which they permit bind them are wisdom or folly.

A concept central to the argument against this is interestingly one which was also relied upon by the early anarchists in their understanding of human nature: plasticity. The human mind, it is proposed, is set neither one way or the other but arrives unbiased and is largely an impression of what has been in contact with it. To the anarchists this allowed for an argument that those minds which were accustomed to living beneath hierarchy and under capitalism could adjust to life outside these confines with enhancement rather than simply continuing to act as they had done previously, but with less restraint. Instead a different environment would elicit a different response.

Although flawed in other ways Anarchy has provided a view of humanity which is broadly correct: although not decided entirely by their surroundings, as the Marxists would argue, minds alter depending upon their condition. In a society where throughout lives roles, modes of behaviour, patterns of speech and even colours are declared as belonging either to one faction or the other it is natural that the division along these boundaries shall become largely self-enforced. In this context being raised as one gender rather than (and frequently in contrast to) another results in the anticipated role, garb and other assorted defining features often being conformed to, an unpleasant set of consequences including the pay gap, the grade gap and cultural practices of the sort I tried to help wipe out. The mind was originally not set in any fashion; but after the conditions became clear the outcome was appropriate to the surroundings, which are gender dominated. This does not make it desirable and is not remarkable: indeed it is, if anything, notable that there is not a stronger bond amongst much of humanity to their assigned position.

To the extent that humanity is thus confined it is also unsurprising that where the unwritten gender laws (unwritten, perhaps, apart from recently in texts bearing the title template of Why women can’t X and men can’t Y and in antiquated Victorian etiquette texts) are not enforced upon the self there are other forces willing to ensure that it is by someone. When what effectively amounts to an ideology is mistaken for biology the consequence is naturally those who dissent, with the consequence being that the very flimsiness of the concept’s authority requires irrational responses in order to safeguard it. As “nature” is less thorough than genderists imagined they must enforce its laws with their own efforts or else realise it for the sham it is. These guardians are in no short supply: from the state-backed thugs beating women into burkas on the streets of Saudi Arabia to the unpaid but equally eager gentleman that recently set upon a young goth for wearing eyeliner and killed his girlfriend when she attempted to defend him. Pettier examples are rife, often more snide than vicious. I do not doubt that the vast majority of gender defenders deplore such tactics, but punishment is vital for such a system to remain in place; as well as an inevitable consequence of its existence: for as long as there is defiance of an idea its weakness will be apparent and those who’s reality demands its existence to be ironclad will protect it through crushing the deviant.

All the sake of fantasy.

But the very existence of this turbulent insecurity demonstrates the fragility of the concept which they will go so far to protect. If the foundations of the distinctions with which they define themselves were as deeply running as their ideology demands they would have no need to come to their aid. As it is their very efforts serve only to display the absence of substance in the supposed dichotomy.

This is what makes a struggle against the notion so valuable: not only is it not worth the blood spilt over it, not worth the brutal and unjust systems it props up firmly but it can be defeated. Already it has weakened enough to allow women in trousers, the work place and all manner of locations they would previously have been seen as shockingly innappropriate for. Already a man born a woman has given birth. Further triumphs are easily within reach and ultimately the entire rotten edifice is within fortune’s reach of receiving the tearing down it richly deserves.

Both Blogged or Otherwise, both in Theory and Application

I was planning a write-up of some kind (hideously late though it inarguably would have been) but it turns out that Penny Red beat me to the punch:

Fashionably late to the party, this week I went to a massively interesting liberal bloggers’ event at the Guardian. It was fantastic to finally meet people I’ve spent so long sparring with online; that awkward shuffling when a roomful of geeky people who know each other well but haven’t actually met and are trying, shyly, to match faces to cyberspace handles felt pleasingly zeitgeist as always. It was the second part of the evening, the panel on women’s blogs, feminist blogs and their interaction with the rest of the blogsphere, that really got my hackles raised.

Basically, that was it for me as well. Entirely. That was my evening. The only point at which our views diverge is upon the exact nature of the annoyance posed, which is a pretty ineluctable given that she’s a feminist and insofar as I can be classified along such lines I’m far more the post-. The consequences of the feminist movement and both its successes and failures have left a world far more complex and variable than that which preceded it and all that.

In short I found the second half of the discussion by far the weaker. I think the greatest error was people asking the Freudian “What to feminist bloggers want?” when such a question is as great an absurdity as asking “What do liberal blogger want?”, if not more so. There is a vast amount of diversity within that ideology and a vast amount of different people who have been pinned with the tag, so expecting to nail down what all of them, to a writer, desire is an obvious impossibility.

As far as I could tell the assembled views of the panel were simple and easily appreciable. They consisted of more credit, more attention, less abuse and more interaction.

Apparently the feminist blogosphere (I detest that term as much as Penny does yet can find no superior) despises men assuming that they will become their leaders. This appears to be a wide-spread concern but, as far as I can tell, has not actually been attempted. If evidence of as much is forthcoming then I shall revise my position but I’ve never met anyone expressing an interest in leading the feminists in any direction and struggle to see why anyone would.

The matter of abuse is something which we (that is to say, SES) have had some experience. Indeed the only commenteers we seemed able to attract in our early days were people delivering death threats, posting images of recently evacuated foecal carcass and so on. As one of the bloggers present at the Liberal Conspiracy who had “Lived online as a man” for a year had found this is in no way limited to female bloggers, it is simply a matter of the terms of abuse shifting as gender appropriate (although “Bitch”, to a degree, can cover either). As far as I am concerned the best form of moderation there is is minimal moderation. If the consequences hurt anyone’s feelings then I suggest that they read up on the Stoics. I assure Penny and anyone else concerned that if this leads them to deem me a “Typical man” then this displays more of their prejudices than of my character. As with most earnest insults.

So with that criticism of the myn dealt with I suppose I should respond in kind by making two points concerning feminist blogs in Britain, both of which are informed by some consideration of the state of affairs across the Atlantic, before a third which concludes matters:

Insularity

(Or, when referring to America, “Incestuousness”.)

This was something which concerned me immensely concerning British feminist blogs but we’ve had three feminist bloggers comment here this week and they seem to make up the considerable majority of commenteers here (at least for now). So really, I can’t complain. Not least because otherwise they might all leave, which would upset us all immensely.

But certainly I had heard little from the feminists prior to the aforementioned gathering. And the state across the pond is simply dire. There vast blogs can be found with thriving communities that consist seemingly entirely of feminist women. This is not terrible in itself but it seems that for the most part it seems that this results in views supporting the feminist ideology being provided and then getting a plethora of reactions (generally shocked or outraged or bitterly amused about something) from hundreds of feminists. All saying nearly the same thing and generally coming from much the same position.

Occasionally there is a moment of schism such as whenever someone mentions pornography and the distinction between Dworkin acolytes and contemporary thinkers becomes stark, or when the Male Rights types show up or somebody mentions male mutilation standard in America while the treatment of Egyptian girls is under discussion (the latter two often coincide, and fair play to the otherwise platform devoid chaps) but really, it’s mostly unproductive noise focused around ideological consensus and resulting rhetorical hegemony.

Which has its purpose, I suppose, but if their interest is smashing the patriarchy achieves roughly fuck all. The result is a group of people with a view points of considerable divergence but largely the same set of views agreeing on almost everything and occasionally breaking out into a furious flame-war. I suppose that most involved enjoy themselves, but upon their own terms it doesn’t really get anyone anywhere. For instance, it fails completely in getting any men involved besides the (very occasional) male feminist and the Men’s Rights who come there to get some attention from the only people who really respond (albeit by telling them to GTFO and stop bringing the males into a discussion not about them), or just to troll their enemies hard (male rights advocacy is something which warrants its own article, suffice it to say that they’re a diverse bunch).

This suits the sort of segregationist feminists who wish to divide from masculinity and males altogether and form their own gender seperatist lesbian colonies but these are perhaps the least desirable and (thankfully) amongst the smallest faction of feminists around (even Dworkin suggested remaining within the patriarchy, albeit only in order to “begin to tear male dominance to pieces, to pull it apart, to vandalize it, to destabilize it, to mess it up, to get in its way, to fuck it up.”) The rest of the ideology presumably desires some sort of interaction and if it happens elsewhere I’ve seen scanty evidence.

The phrase “Preaching to the choir” comes to mind and much though it is over-used it does seem apt.

So what can British bloggers do to evade this fate? What they’re doing already, for the most part (and I say that, of course, objectively and entirely apart from the desire to see our “Recent Comments” bar remain in motion) but also trying to get more men engaged at all costs. Sunny, our host at the Liberal Conspiracy do, has apparently described himself as a feminist; but is amongst very sparse company. The F Word has no male contributers and as far as I am aware neither does the Carnival of Feminists. Needless to say the same is true of Feministe, Feministing and all the other large collaborative American feminist blogs. This I find curious: men make up half the population yet are represented as 0% of the feminist writers on all of the mainstream feminist blogs. Bizarre. So much for “You don’t have to be a woman to be a feminist” (always, I note, with that emphasis). It seems that this possibility is not a reality, or at least not to a great enough extent to merit inclusion of any instances. Perhaps the quality of these rarities is sub-standard? I find this curious too. Let us not forget that the work of any female feminist can be at least matched by Mill’s On Women.

If such establishments wish to encourage male feminism then simply offering them a platform would not be a bad place to start, as would simply not writing articles such as this which are both intimidating in length (as you can probably tell brevity is entirely my specialty) and also seemingly place the emphasis entirely upon what must be done by men (”Sarcasm and satire aren’t always easy to get across, so it’s probably safer not to start flinging around gendered insults” it is insisted, as if women are entirely incapable of telling when my calling them “moronic wenches” is in jest (always) or earnest (never) and should take no effort to improve their observational and interpersonal skills if they are not. No, the fault here lies purely with the men).

Instead they should simply let people turn up, refrain from treating anyone as if they don’t belong and for the sake of the stars turn off comment moderation. This blog has barely any comments as it is, prior to our current comments policy (don’t mention Oliv*r K*mm or H*rry’s Pl*ce and you can stay up unedited) and the removal of com-mod it was effectively dead. I am aware that many feminist websites already have thriving communities, but these doubtless could become expanded upon by reducing restrictions. A considerable number of people (myself unquestionably included) are so opinionated the prospect of having to await “Approval” for their views being plastered across a webpage is considerably irksome.

Finally there is the matter of linking to feminists and so on. This is not the sort of matter which I or any other blogger I know of (or can envision) does by quota. If something worthwhile is seen that seems to warrant distribution then that is exactly what is done. So far the only time that this has happened to my recollection with a feminist site was Penny Red’s, which both Douglas and I have linked to and I’ve commented on a fair few times. Now that we’re getting incomings and comments from blogs of that nature doubtless reciprocation will follow so that all seems to be in hand from this front. As far as I can tell this is the only way to proceed and really, it’s how all bloggers interact. Nothing ideological about it, purely social.

Ineffectuality

(There’s nothing like a word you’ve just invented to form the central foundation of a critique.)

Again, let us compare the state of our nation (how wary I am of that phrase) to that of those across the Atlantic Puddle in terms of this ideology and its accompanying movement. In America when women seemed threatened with abortion being restricted, limited or outlawed a few years ago feminists marched a million women on Washington.

Never mind the national news in America, that filled copious column inches here in Britain. It was a remarkable event and a sterling achievement, one that made apparent the often disregarded political clout of the pro-choice movement. This demonstration staged something of a reset upon the terms of debate, which had previously seemed to dangle the prospect of a move upon Roe versus Wade by some political authority or other, a goal overwhelmingly coveted by the substantial political force of the theologically inspired far-right, which at that time had thrown its support whole-heartedly behind the wholly dominant Republican Party. Afterwards the reactionary forces were forced into if not a retreat then at least a lull. Their hope for statist dominance over the female body faded, if not their desire.

Now let us be fair to British feminists. The population of America is far vaster than our own. Even including such conditions as inter-state travel we must accept that they had a far larger pool to fish activists from. But with that in mind surely it would be reasonable to set the point of comparison at a modest ten thousand women marching upon Westminster?

Well this year Nadine “Mad Nad” Dorries spearheaded efforts to reduce the number of weeks after which an abortion could legally occur. I was aware of her efforts since I read newspapers. I was aware of opposition because it was included within them. I knew that Nadine Dorries was a nut because of Ben Goldacre and his glorious blog and its numerous critiques of her output. I had seen her case demolished in Penny Red here where she matches each of the 24 “reasons” provided by Dorries with a far better one. I knew Goldacre from the Guardian and knew of Red through a mutual friend.

But there was no immense protest that I could not have helped but notice. There was nothing that demostrated widespread opposition in a fashion that was impossible to dispute. There was not five digits of feminists joining Brian Haw on the Westminster lawn of Parliament Square.

This is entirely inadequate. It is far from sufficient to offer information to those interested, attention must be seized. This can not be achieved through a few blog posts, but only through a campaign. This is not the sort of affair that British feminism appears to have achieved in this decade, and it shall almost certainly have to before the decade is out.

There was a great fuss made at the Liberal Conspiracy meet (and perhaps elsewhere, I haven’t been bothered to check) over who was and deserved to take “Credit” for the Commons rejection of the proposed increase of the limit. But as far as I’m concerned the British Public is owed the most as, above all else, the most important reason for the abortion laws remaining the same is that there are more Labour MPs than Conservative MPs. After the next election there will be more Conservative MPs than Labour MPs and the measure will be passed.

Is that as inevitable as I presented it? Not entirely, but given the current approach of the feminists (not to mention the Labour Party) of Britain I would suggest that, barring some unlikely shift of strategy, that is what shall occur. This is partially the consequence of the aforementioned insularity but partially the result of the weakness of British feminism. The reasons for this are numerous but I would argue that it is largely the consequence of it being less necessity for its existence here than elsewhere.

It is at this point that I can feel fists clenching but this view has been under consideration for some time.

Redundancy & Malaprop

It is often argued that Thatcher killed off British socialism. This incorrect, that was Callaghan. Thatcher killed British feminism. Once the reactionary party of Britain had been led by a woman, a woman unashamdly of the petty bourgeois, no less, and it was a woman who had kept them in power for well over a decade there was no longer any hope for the ideology which asserted that society was based around the oppression of one gender by another. Had it perhaps been the progressives of Labour or even the Liberals who had placed a PM into power then feminism in Britain would have stood a chance. It wasn’t. It was Thatcher. It was the Conservative Party. She thought that men were weak, she fought them, she won. As matters stand feminists are trying to forge a movement in a nation where loathsome organisations offer better insurance premiums to those in possession of a vagina; since apparently that renders them “Better drivers” (yes, all of them) and Polly Toynbee often digresses from her polite statist leftism to tell us how useless her husband is.

Amongst many, many others.

Yes, the malaise within British feminism is far from confined to their treatment of the internet. As far as solutions for this are concerned I have nothing to offer. This is because it is here that I consider the conventional feminist viewpoint to disintegrate: the patriarchy was a model in existence but has since seen partial collapse while the cultural lie of men and women being somehow innately distinct in ways that are utterly inherent has, largely remained strong. Requiring men to be perceived as inferior in certain ways as severely as women were and (in many ways) still are; although often less challenged. This is a state of affairs that has left both men and women treated injustly; but is a system so complex and convoluted that any understanding which begins from the premise of master and servant can not stand a fraction of a chance of hoping to depict the situation accurately. Any that hopes to stamp out misogyny and focuses on as much is forgetting misandry, and thus in reverse.

This differs in numerous, obvious ways with feminism; but perhaps not as greatly as may be assumed intuitively. There are a number of shared aims and intentions. I agree with much of the feminist agenda. I agree, above all else, with this:

After generations of struggle, we are still trying to build a better world, one where gender does not dictate behaviour and assumptions and opportunities.

but struggle to see how any collective following an ideology named “Feminism” can succeed in “laying the foundations” for as much. I’m willing to stage an attempt at such a venture with anyone willing to engage but I question the logic of approaching it using the exact same vehicle that tore through the Patriarchy. Especially when the consequences, indeed the tools, of that messy demolition included a surge of caustic misandry that presently coats our culture like some nauseating fume.

I further agree entirely with the rational feminist criticism of the prejudice based around what amounts to a different set of genitals. I oppose the idea of genders for much the same reason I do nations: they are cultural notions with merit but which cause problems in total disproportion to their value. They belong in the ever increasing pile of obsolete ideas generated by cultural progress throughout history. As ideas they are entirely within the power of humans to alter as appropriate or else completely dispose of. This may be a struggle but it is unquestionably a possibility. But this is not the sort of endeavour that can be undertaken by a movement which, from its name to its membership, is entirely suited more to one gender than the other. It requires engagement of both and mass support capable of overwhelming entirely existing social norms, neither of which has been achieved by feminism previously or seems to be a plausible aim for the future. What is required is that feminists live up to this talk of women being “Collaborative rather than competitive” in destroying the crux of all such preconceptions alongside their entirely required comrades. It seems that some have realised this; but with a mentality that sees man as the oppressor and woman his victim hamstringing their understanding of contemporary existence there is little hope of immense progress.

So the best offer I can make here is that the feminists stop being as much and start tearing down the gender roles alongside the partners that without they can never accomplish such an epic feat. Those currently designated as “men”.

Or at least get a few more feet on the streets and kick up a proper fuss.

I was at the Liberal Conspiracy/Guardian Blog Nation event on Wednesday evening.  One of the many thoughts to come from it (more of which might be written up at a later date) was that female blogging was alive and kicking.  I admit to not regularly reading blogs written by women, and for presuming that only a handful of women actually blogged.  I am well aware of the statistics showing the tiny minority of women bloggers, but have opened my eyes to the joys of some of the female blogs out there*.  Upon hearing Harriet Harman’s latest proposals for “equal opportunities” legislation, therefore, I made a concerted effort to see what the female and feminist blogs had to say.

The message is fairly clear - the proposals are extremely confusing.  It is unclear as to whether allowing women to be chosen above men of equal ability is anything new: surely this is already legal?  In fact, it is unclear as to whether or not any sort of positive discrimination is being proposed at all.  The draft proposals seem to be a wrapping up of existing legislation, being spun as a great move for feminism.  It seems as if the feminists aren’t buying it.

The Westminster media narrative has moved on, but it is worth considering the effect of this legislation.  It has been spun to appeal: one Tory commented that it was the most politically correct announcement from the most politically correct minister.  He couldn’t be more wrong.  I was ready to get on a high horse about the evils of positive discrimination, but found that I couldn’t.  Instead, I was left wondering why Harman needed to bother at all.  This is no new announcement, no change in policy, just a way of lubricating the existing regulations.  It is dull, but exactly the sort of legislation Parliament should be churning out - like the fertilisation bill, which gathered the loose ends of a whole sphere of regulation into one manageable bunch.  It actually allows employers to arbitrarily discriminate in any direction: not very PC at all.

The Daily Express ran with some tripe about how white middle class men are to be slain by the feminist monster, but the proposals give equal rights for potential employers to pick white men over black women arbitrarily.  This was a confusing announcement because of the spin.  The substance of the proposal is limited, but commendable.  If Harman had dared to present it for what it was, she may have missed headlines but would have done the important work of government.  One cannot help but think that Labour, in its current state, should not so easily sacrifice a rare display of good governance for the sake of a failed attempt at positive headlines.

- - -
*Penny Red is a favourite already.  Our Recommended Links list has more.

Penny Red provides a far better defence of Spelman than Osborne did this morning:

What, precisely, is the problem with a working mother paying another working woman to carry out childcare and admin duties that she doesn’t have time for? Does the public worry that people who are ‘only nannies’ are unlikely to make good secretaries? Does a focus on childcare as a career mean one is unable to read, write, keep files and open post? Was the nanny found delinquently dancing on rooftops with rogue chimney sweeps? Or is the issue simply that childcare isn’t seen as an important part of a politician’s expenses, particularly if that politician is female? Excuse me whilst I remove my jacket: it’s getting rather hot under this glass ceiling.

I’m persuaded; MPs should be allowed to claim nannies on expenses. If they’ve got children, child-care will presumably form a considerable part of their expenditure. A nanny may well be essential, given the long and often unpredictable hours often involved. So allowing that under expenses seems reasonable - certainly more so than demands for extra cars…

Spelman (probably) broke rules on expenses, such as they are. Whether those rules are at all fair as they are is distinctly more debatable. Perhaps the Tories could, if they’d tried early enough, shifted the issue onto that? The shift would be interesting: they’d be able to portray themselves as supporting working women’s advancement. And to shift the agenda to that from what was originally an expenses scandal would be quite the political achievement.

Of course, as Penny Red points out, it’s unlikely to happen: they’re the Tories. And public advocacy for financial support of working women in carer’s roles? Well, that would be socialism…

Polly Toynbee wrote a frustrating article today, not only for the content but just how close she came to identifying and dealing with the problem.

it begins in infancy, when little girls learn where they belong as soon as they draw their first breath. The pink disease is far worse than it was 20 years ago. “Princess on board”, read the yukky signs in family cars. It’s almost impossible to buy toys now that are not putridly pink branded or aggressively superhero male. Bikes, sleeping bags, lunch boxes, nothing is neutral now, everything Barbie and Bratz. Princess tiaras, fairy and ballerina dressing up, pink, pink everywhere - and it damages girls’ brains. That’s before you start on thongs for seven-year-olds and sexy slogans on three-year-olds’ T-shirts.

Not, if you will, that she observes that “little girls” are taught their place but neglects to mention the boys. She does swing on to reference the contrast but it seems that it was purely for the sake of it, rather than to actual deal with the problems root. Because her article is largely about the failure of feminism it is truly crippling as an omission. Feminism made immense gains but then stalled, before becoming a label that most women would do their best to avoid.

I would argue that one of the major errors made by feminism was remaining something that only women could feel comfortable associating with. Given the history of the movement, I might remind you that the author of On Women was John Stuart Mill, this was clearly unnecessary but came from a failure to deal thoroughly with the matter of binary gender and its failings. This should have been a firm target under persistent attack, so allow me to do a spot of assault upon in myself here:

The much-touted differences between women and men are vastly exaggerated and are based around observation, rather than consideration of origins. The role of women and men varies between society to society and thus seems to be more cultural than inherent. There are obvious and immutable physical differences such as genitals and a hormone cycle but the significance of these beyond their totality is not something that can be demonstrated as inherent. Indeed even the differences in brain structure are not of immense importance as evidence for the “natural” presence of gender, given that that organ can be restructured by upbringing in other ways.

Tellingly the differences of character {such as they are} do not pre-date the differences of treatment. A study found that children clad in pink received more empathetic treatment than those in blue, supporting Toynbee’s claims along with various other studies. So I had hopes that she would press home: hammer the absurdity and make the case for feminism expanding its ranks beyond the mono-gendered funk that it had been condemned to.

Instead she suggested the following for lap-dancing clubs:

Time for a bit of the ancient music from women outside clashing saucepan lids and taking photos to post on the web of the men who go in. Where has the outrage gone? In the face of ever more rampant pornification of everything, women fall silent for fear feminism might be mistaken for prudery.

Bizarre. Apparently she is concerned about feminism withering and suggests that the solution is radical feminist tactics, when it was that sort of feminist thought that caused a vast amount of the problems in the first place. Why are feminists constantly having to fend of questions about why they hate men? Because many of them do and this form of deranged bigotry has resulted in all of the immense and sterling successes of feminism being tarnished, one of the most successful and just movements of the 20th century left uncherished by many.

Radical feminists were shrill, self-righteous and bigoted. They saw men as not only inherently distinct but inherently inferior. In suggesting their cruel strategies be utilised Toynbee suggests that feminism worsen its position immensely. The instant assumption that all women who strip for a living are exploited victims irks. If breast-feeding is nothing to be disgusted over or ashamed about where is the horror in exposing the body part utilised? Or sexual organs for that matter: unless they are inherently horrific what harm is done by revealing them for money? Besides, why presume that none of the women working in lapdancing venues are raging exhibitionists? Why endanger their perfect profession by attempting to destroy the establishments that employ them? And why attempt to ruin the lives of the lewd instead of having a conversation with them about your objections to their actions? Why not treat men, even those men that enjoy viewing nude flesh and are willing to pay, like rational beings?

Toynbee clearly wants the movement to become more like OutRage! than Stonewall and given her earlier words it was a true disappointment. She was almost there and yet slipped back into the sloppy, offensive auto-pilot that has left the movement she apparently cherishes to failure.

Her suggestion of a network of youth groups is more sound but even it’s proposed name is worrisome. “United Sisterhood”. Why leave the job half done? It seems that Toynbee has little interest in truly resolving the problem that presents itself: the senseless division of humanity into two, an artificial dichotomy that is wholly inadequate for a species so diverse. Consider this. Are these people hateful? Disdainful? Vile? Yes, all of these and more, but above all they are confused. Their minds have no means of dealing with something outside the tight, limited confines set for them from birth. Their only response is to lash out, flail out with baffled fury.

This can be dealt with, it can be altered. But we must do away with the fallacious notion that has gained much ground in recent years, with books like Women Are From Venus, Men Are From Mars and its countless acolytes. The notion that that which is present must always be so, will do well to comment on endlessly and establish as immutable. It has gained immense ground, partially through using a persecution as vicious as any radfem {constantly casting its claims as something which are clearly true but rarely stated due to it no longer being “Not politically correct” to say so, when the claims of inherent distinction fly heavily from all sides and the case for gender disintegration is very rarely made} and it seems that contemporary feminism is by no means up for its destruction.

Forty years on from those apparently halcyon days, perhaps we require something new. Preferably something that I can join in on without any funny looks.